Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Platypus

Platypus

This was made a featured article so long ago that I can't find any record of why it was promoted. Anyway, it was demoted in July this year (See Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Platypus for its complete FA history). Over the past couple of months I've completely rewritten it - I think it is back up to FA standard now. Yomangani ^talk 10:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. very nice. Rlevse 12:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Informative, well-referenced, well-illustrated, well-written... overall everything a FA should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs)
Comment: The image map of the platypus distribution has no information in it, either as caption or in the image description. What does the color mean? I can guess, but since there are 2 different intensities of purple color, does it mean that platypuses are distributed throughout the continent? And also, to avoid WP:OR issue and for the accuracy of the image, there must be a source of this distribution map, isn't it? — Indon (reply) — 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out - I've added an explanation to the map. The OR concern is addressed by the referenced range details in the article - I don't think it is necessary to cite the map key as well. Yomangani ^talk 15:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but which reference that was used as the source of the distribution image? — Indon (reply) — 15:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference with a map that duplicates the info shown. Yomangani ^talk 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but actually it should be given in the image description, because then the image can be used in any articles without concerning its accuracy. So, here is my support for such a high-quality article. — Indon (reply) — 15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let editors know, that I've been bold to edit the image description in its Commons page. — Indon (reply) — 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great article. Only two minor comments I wish to add.
- Can a picture of a platypus egg be obtained? It would be very interesting since it is one of the few mammals that lay eggs.
  - I've only been able to find one decent photo - I emailed the owner for permission to use it but haven't heard back yet. Yomangani^talk 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added an external link to the picture in the meantime. Yomangani ^talk 09:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One sentences which appear akward to me: The platypus occupies much the same general distribution as it did prior to European settlement of Australia, except for its loss from the state of South Australia. Much the same general distribution is my concern. Joelito (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've slightly reworded that now. Yomangani^talk 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm. Well, that explains the difference between the German and English maps. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent job. Definitely meets the FA criteria. Jay32183 17:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Support Very comprehensive and well-cited. Some comments:
- ~~Keep dashes separating clauses in sentences consistent; I spotted "-", "–", and "—" all used.~~
- ~~Two~~ red links: "interclavicle" ~~and "defensin-like proteins".~~

Overall, good job. -Gzkn 01:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed [[defensin-like proteins]] to [[defensin]]-like [[protein]]s. There's really not much I can do about the interclavicle link: an interclavicle exists in certain animals, so there's no use not having an article about it (not double negative because "not having" refers to nonexistence and "no use" refers the futility thereof; not entirely canceling each other out), but I wouldn't know enough to start an article about it. I also eliminated dash variation by removing the dashes (where they served as conjunctions) and finding a more appropriate way to logically connect two independent clauses. See here On that note, I

Support: Nice article. It's good, it's factual, and the popular culture section is intelligible prose, not just a list. Well done. Gracenotes ^T § 02:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough information for both interclavicle and defensin-like protein for them to have their own article, which is why they are linked even though those articles don't yet exist (both are on my redlink list to be filled sometime soon). Yomangani ^talk 09:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I am disclosing I did a bit of editing on it as well but I reckon it satisfies all criteria - neutral, comprehensive, succinct and readable. Cas Liber 06:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good. Wiki-newbie 09:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support and a congratulatory salute for saving yet another neglected or demoted featured article. Sandy (Talk) 14:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great article. Nat91 18:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice!--Yannismarou 20:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well writen, interesting, well cited, and has good pictures. Well done. Darthgriz 9 8 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]